Child porn police to investigate Elton John

[Sojiita]

Originally Posted by Chilly Willy

Well, a pink taco shot of a five year old. That's where I draw the line.

I'm super liberal with this kind of thing. In Europe all the kiddies are naked all the time. It was on American tv that I first saw a blurred out butt crack of a baby, and I found that disturbing. Why blur a butt crack?

Anyway, this is an explicite pose. Her spread out vagina is the center of the picture. Naked kiddies running around in natural poses - no problem. As I said, I have a million naked pix of my nephews.

If this is art and the vagina of the girl plays no role in it, why not take a shot where it isn't spread open wide? It's a scheme. Overstep boundaries and you're considered an artist. I say: If you can't be an artist without exploiting children, you're no artist to begin with.

*sigh* You Europeans are just so..uptight and puritanical about sexuality..

*'pink taco'...YUCK!! that is just particularly disturbing to my gay sensibilities..

[Voodoo Child]

pink taco

[Chilly Willy]

Originally Posted by Sojiita

*sigh* You Europeans are just so..uptight and puritanical about sexuality..

*'pink taco'...YUCK!! that is just particularly disturbing to my gay sensibilities..

You know, that's just how we are. We can't help it. As a matter of fact, I'm airing my pink taco as we speak. Type.

[crackho]

Originally Posted by Sojiita

Well at least we have gotten into a discussion of 'what is exploitation, what is art? etc. See we are not just jealous bitter fatties snarking about Whoregelina..we talkin' about educumacated subjekts! :;

U's makin my heads hurt

[AliceInWonderland]

Originally Posted by Chilly Willy

Here you go, Voodoo:

Klara and Edda Belly Dancing

Twitchy found it.

I tried really hard not to be offended by the picture, but it's bad. It's a natural playing situation, which is fine, but it shouldn't be published.

ewwww! OMG NO! THAT IS NOT OK!!!! im sorry, but you coulda photographed that pic w/ the little girls wearing proper underwear at least ok, i dont need to feel like a gynocologist when i see art involving under 18 children.

Originally Posted by Laxmobster

I still feel uncomfortable with my pets being around me while I'm naked. When I was younger I used to throw a towel over my dog's face while I changed clothes.

yeah, i totally understand; I just know my dog and cats must be thinking - "ew gross, why is her whole body bare like that!?! DISGUSTING!"

[Chilly Willy]

^^ And that'as the censored version!!!! The original doesn't have the blurry stuff.

[AliceInWonderland]

no, its just not right ok. i dont like it and i think that little girl is being exploited. that being said, Michael jackson is the one who should be continuously investigated everyday of his life forever, not necessarily EJ.

[southernbelle]

Personally, I think that if they aren't Elton's kids, he has no reason to be looking at or "admiring" a picture like that. You can capture the innocence and playfulness of children without graphic nudity. I think a lot of pedophiliac activity occurs under the pretense of it being "art" and it is something that is worth investigating- who is taking these pictures, who is purchasing them, etc. It seems to me that it could be a very logical way to catch people who are into that sort of thing.

I'm not saying that EVERYONE who has art like this is a pedophile, but just that there's a high likelihood that some of them are. I believe that when you purchase something like this, you make yourself fair game for investigation.

[sputnik]

Originally Posted by pacific breeze

I am amazed that people are calling Elton John a pedophile on the basis of buying the work of a well-known photographer and donating it to a museum. I won't even begin to guess at the hidden agendas at work responsible for the "investigation" in the UK, but I'm willing to bet that a single charge will never be laid.

Never mind that I find the photo charming and playful and NOT AT ALL SEXUAL. God, what is the world coming to that people see sex in that photo? Just look at the expressions on their faces, and their eyes. They tell you all you need to know. One of them is wearing underpants for heaven's sakes! To me, it shows the joy and curiousity and exploration of childhood, nothing more.

I find it disturbing, and very, very sad that some people would have EJ hung, drawn and quartered on the basis of a one photo that he likely had little to do with. The man collects literally millions of things, is a shopaholic, and probably had an assistant pick the photo and send it. But hey, let's call him a pedophile and smear his reputation because we need to make someone pay for our fear of sex and sexuality.

If that pic showed those kids with guns pointing at each other's heads, there would be nary a peep out of the people calling for Elton's hide right now.

hello, the voice of reason!
i am surprised that they are making an issue out of a nan goldin photograph, and even mroe shocked and appalled that so many people here seem to agree with it!!! what the fuck is wrong with the world that people can't tell the difference between art and pornography, and worst of all, go straight to mob mentality and condemn everyone involved before even looking at all the facts. what's sick is that anyone can look at this pic and immediately think 'paedophile'! it just speaks volumes about the extent to which people have been brainwashed by the whole paedo trend that has taken over the media lately. it's like suddenly people discovered paedophilia and it became an issue, and now people see them everywhere. get a fucking grip!

[Chilly Willy]

^^ Would you want your daughter portrayed in a picture like that for all the world to see? I doubt it.

Nan Goldin is a pretentious idiot, IMO. I take better pictures than that. Of course, since I don't exploit children, it isn't shocking, therefore has no artistic value.

[sweet and sexy]

Lol, edit.

[sputnik]

Originally Posted by Chilly Willy

^^ Would you want your daughter portrayed in a picture like that for all the world to see? I doubt it.

Nan Goldin is a pretentious idiot, IMO. I take better pictures than that. Of course, since I don't exploit children, it isn't shocking, therefore has no artistic value.

whether you like her pics or not, whether you think she's a pretentious idiot or not, whether you would allow her to take that pic of your kids or not (i would say it depends on the parents, some people still think naked children are perfectly innocent, the perverts are the people that get off on that or see something potentially sexual in a pic of a naked kid. to me they all look like the chubby little cherubs that are all over old paintings)... that still doesn't make it child porn. that still doesn't make it alright to investigate someone who bought the pic and donated it for a show. it's obviously a pic of 2 kids playing, there is nothing sexual about it and it's people that see something sexual in there that have the problem. as for paedophiles, they are turned on at the sight of any kid, they don't have to be naked. what are you going to do, lock away all the children because some paedophile might get aroused looking at them at the beach or playground?

[Chilly Willy]

^^ If you re-read the thread, I answered all those question. It's a freaking pink taco shot! A spread eagle! It's not just a naked kid.

Where I come from kids are naked all the time, but no one in their right mind would publish a picture of a little girl's vagina. Huge difference.

[yaruar]

Originally Posted by sputnik

hello, the voice of reason!
i am surprised that they are making an issue out of a nan goldin photograph, and even mroe shocked and appalled that so many people here seem to agree with it!!! what the fuck is wrong with the world that people can't tell the difference between art and pornography, and worst of all, go straight to mob mentality and condemn everyone involved before even looking at all the facts. what's sick is that anyone can look at this pic and immediately think 'paedophile'! it just speaks volumes about the extent to which people have been brainwashed by the whole paedo trend that has taken over the media lately. it's like suddenly people discovered paedophilia and it became an issue, and now people see them everywhere. get a fucking grip!

Personally i'm going to call for the gallery housing Correggio's Leda and the Swan to be prosecuted. Not only does it contain naked toddlers and adolecents, but it also portrays a vile act of Beastiality.

[Sojiita]

Originally Posted by Chilly Willy

^^ If you re-read the thread, I answered all those question. It's a freaking pink taco shot! A spread eagle! It's not just a naked kid.

Where I come from kids are naked all the time, but no one in their right mind would publish a picture of a little girl's vagina. Huge difference.

Please Chilly no more!!!

I will never be able to look at a taco again if this keeps up!